INDRA DEVI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Ashok Kumar son of Chet Ram a young student, 17 years of age, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, under section 376 read with Section 511 Indian Penal Code. For the said offence instead of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the respondent was ordered to he released on probation of good conduct subject to his furnishing the necessary bond in the sum of Rs 2,000/. with one surety in the like amount, undertaking to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of two years. under the provisions of section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. He was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 3.000/ - as compensation to the prosecutrix and another sum of Rs. 500/ - as costs of the proceedings. There is no appeal on behalf of the respondent against the aforesaid conviction and sentence. However, the present Revision Petition has been filed by Kundan Lal, father of the prosecutrix with a prayer for enhancement of the sentence of the respondent.

(2.) THE incident in question took place on February 18, 1984. The prosecutrix Indra (P.W 1) was undergoing a course of studies in Industrial Training Institute at Sohna and on the day above -mentioned, she was coming back to her village on a bicycle. When she came near a culvert over the canal of village Atta, the respondent followed her on a bicycle and after overtaking her he hit his bicycle against hers, as a result of which she fell down. It is stated that the respondent brandished a knife and dragged the prosecutrix to a nearby pit and also caught hold of her breasts. It is further stated that the respondent forced the prosecutrix to lie on the ground and cut the string of her salwar. On the alarm raised by the girl, Shiv Charan (PW.3) and two other persons from the village who were going from Sohna in a tractor, came to the spot. On seeing them, the respondent made good his escape along with his bicycler. The prosecutrix was told the name and other particulars of the respondent by the witnesses, who took her to her house, where she narrated the incident to her father Kundan Lal, petitioner. The matter was reported to the police the next day. The subsequent prosecution of the respondent resulted in his conviction and sentence, as already noticed.

(3.) THE sole question which falls for consideration is, as to, whether the present is a fit case, where the discretion exercised by the trial Court in affording the benefit of probation to the respondent should be interfered with and a sentence imposed upon him, or not. In this behalf, the trial Court has rightly taken into account the various factors connected with the whole episode. The respondent, at the time of the occurrence was about 17 years of age and a first offender. He was a student of Matric with clean antecedents. It is obvious that he as led astray by adolescent passion and misbehaved with the, prosecutix. It is, however, doubtful his act can be said to be an attempt to rape because he hardly crossed the stage of preparation. This is, however, not a matter which requires, scrutiny as there is no appeal by the respondent. The fact however, remains that the respondent was indeed entitled to the benefit of probation which has been rightly conferred upon him by the trial Court with the burden of Rs. 3000/ - on account of compensation to be paid to the prosecutrix and Rs. 500/ - as costs of the proceedings the interest of the prosecution stands vindicated. In these circumstances, there is no ground for enhancement of sentence, as prayed.